Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged agreement to purchase Bitcoin from the defendants.

The plaintiff had wired $171,791 to the defendants, but no quote for the quantity and price of the cryptocurrency was ever provided or accepted, unlike in their previous transaction.

The court found that there was no enforceable contract because essential terms were missing.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to return the funds with interest based on unjust enrichment.

Following a bifurcated trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages for the defendants' breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that they beat at trial.

The court applied Rule 49.10 and awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $906,704.33.

Following the dismissal of an application regarding the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The self-represented respondents sought $13,500, while the applicant argued for no costs or a set-off against a previous costs award.

Applying the test from Girao v. Cunningham, the court found the respondents were entitled to a fee allowance for work ordinarily done by a lawyer and for opportunity costs incurred.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,000, noting their mixed success on procedural issues.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal, including a claim for a bonus and damages for emotional distress.

On a motion to settle a discovery plan, the plaintiff sought extensive financial records from the defendant to calculate his bonus entitlement.

The court found the request disproportionate at the pre-discovery stage and ordered the defendant to produce only its financial statements.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to produce his medical records, as he conceded they were relevant to his claim for emotional distress.

The plaintiffs purchased an HVAC business from the defendants and subsequently sued for breach of contract, alleging the defendants failed to operate the business in the ordinary course prior to closing.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose slumping sales, employee layoffs, and deteriorating customer relationships.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding they failed to prove the changes were outside the ordinary course of business or not the result of a general deterioration in the HVAC market.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the plaintiffs were entirely responsible for their damages because they failed to exercise their contractual right to investigate the company's financial affairs before closing.

The defendants' counterclaim for the balance owing on a promissory note was allowed.

The plaintiff brought an action to recognize and enforce a New York judgment against the defendants.

The defendants moved for leave to amend their statements of defence, advance crossclaims against each other, and issue third party claims against another individual named in the foreign judgment.

The court granted leave for the consented amendments regarding the voluntariness of the underlying settlement.

However, the court dismissed the motions for crossclaims and third party claims, finding them legally untenable as they improperly sought to relitigate substantive issues of contribution and indemnity that were not part of the foreign judgment.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against the manufacturers and distributors of allegedly defective cochlear implants.

The plaintiff claimed the devices suffered from a design defect causing fluid ingress and premature failure, requiring invasive revision surgery.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action for negligent design, failure to warn, and failure to recall.

The court amended the class definition to include only patients whose devices experienced a 'hard failure' to ensure the class was properly bounded.

With limitations placed on the scope of general damages to ensure common issues predominated over individual medical histories, the court certified the action and appointed the plaintiff as the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, a former university professor and his spouse, sued the CBC for defamation and negligence seeking $10.35 million in damages over news reports regarding the professor's termination following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations.

The CBC brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, the CBC had valid defences of responsible communication, justification, and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed with full indemnity costs awarded to the CBC.

The plaintiff, Zitia Developments (2010) Inc., brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property registered in the name of the defendant, Paul Halyk.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of the property, alleging it was purchased in trust for the corporation as part of a larger land assembly for commercial development.

The court found that the plaintiff established a triable interest in the land based on evidence of funding the downpayment and carrying costs.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court concluded it was just and equitable to grant the CPL, noting the property's integration with the assembled lands and the risk of the plaintiff's claim becoming moot if the property were sold.

The plaintiff estate sought costs following a trial where it recovered a portion of the $30 million claimed from the defendant, including an 80% interest in a property.

The defendant counterclaimed for sexual abuse, which was dismissed.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party and entitled to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party based on unproven allegations of fraud and sexual abuse, finding the allegations did not amount to reprehensible conduct warranting chastisement.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $800,000 on a partial indemnity basis, reflecting its divided success.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former wife alleging misappropriation of joint property and claiming a resulting trust in a property located at 177 Morningview Trail.

The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement in Florida in 1999, which divided their assets and released all claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation or his claim to an interest in the property.

The documentary evidence confirmed the defendant as the sole beneficial owner of the property, and the plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement to the contrary as required by the Statute of Frauds.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff debtors brought a motion for leave to pay the full amount owing to the defendant creditor into court and for an order discharging the encumbrances held as security.

The creditor refused to accept payment unless it was provided with the source of the funds and an additional $500,000 for legal costs.

The court found the creditor's conditions unreasonable, noting that the funds were coming directly from a Schedule III bank and that the credit agreement did not entitle the creditor to costs for defending a breach of contract action brought by the debtors.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants admitted breach but argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages when reselling the property in a falling market, and disputed the remoteness of certain consequential damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial on mitigation, as the plaintiffs took reasonable steps to resell the property.

The court awarded damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, but declined to award damages for the plaintiffs' personal line of credit and construction mortgage, finding them too remote.

The moving party was previously successful on a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered on title to a residential property.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $37,279, while the responding party suggested costs should not exceed $5,000.

The court found the factual issues complex but noted excess time and duplication in preparation.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a commercial real estate transaction that failed to close in April 2020, arguing that pandemic-related financing delays prevented closing and that the vendor acted unreasonably in refusing a further extension.

The court found the vendor tendered on closing and was ready, willing, and able to complete the transaction, while the purchaser lacked funds and had only conditional financing that was not available on the closing date.

The court held that COVID-19 did not create a free-standing legal excuse for contractual non-performance and distinguished authorities where pandemic conditions formed only part of the factual matrix or where the opposing party was not ready to close.

The action for specific performance was dismissed, and the vendor's counterclaim for a declaration of forfeiture of the $200,000 deposits was granted.

Relief from forfeiture was refused.

In an estate and shareholder dispute between siblings, the plaintiff sought broad production, estate accounting relief, and an order restraining the individual defendants from removing money or assets from a closely held corporation.

The court held that most of the requested estate and corporate relief rested on suspicion and unsupported allegations rather than an evidentiary foundation, particularly given the plaintiff's long acquiescence in the estate administration and corporate management.

Applying the significant concern threshold for a passing of accounts and the RJR-Macdonald framework for injunctive relief, the court refused the requested statement of assets, passing of accounts, broader financial disclosure, and restraint order.

The motion was granted only to the limited extent of requiring production of the corporation's tax returns for 2018 through 2024.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay an action arising from a cottage sale dispute on the basis of res judicata, abuse of process, and multiple unpaid costs orders from prior related proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiff's new claim merely attempted to re-litigate the enforceability of an agreement of purchase and sale that had already been decided against him in earlier proceedings and unsuccessfully challenged on appeal.

The court found both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel established, and further held that the plaintiff's failure to pay outstanding costs orders independently justified dismissal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim against the second defendant was also struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

In the alternative, the court held that security for costs of $42,940 would have been appropriate if the action were to continue.

On a mortgage enforcement motion, the moving party sought leave to amend her defence and counterclaim to add multiple proposed defendants by counterclaim, validate service, convert the action from foreclosure to sale, and obtain consolidation with a separate related action.

The court held there was no non-compensable prejudice and that the proposed joinder satisfied the Rules of Civil Procedure because the pleaded facts alleged an interconnected series of transactions, common factual issues, uncertainty about liability, and a strong interest in avoiding inconsistent findings.

The court further held that the proposed unlawful act conspiracy pleading was legally sufficient at the pleadings stage and need not prove the merits on the motion.

Leave to amend, conversion to a sale action, and validation of service were granted; consolidation was left unnecessary in light of the expected discontinuance of the separate action.

The defendant condominium corporation moved for partial summary judgment dismissing claims seeking declarations that unpaid common expenses and a registered lien were satisfied because the plaintiff owner alleged overcharged water expenses and unreimbursed repair costs.

The court held that s. 84(3)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998 unambiguously prohibits an owner from withholding common expenses even when making a claim against the corporation.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found the issue was a discrete question of law with no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the concerns associated with partial summary judgment did not arise.

The motion was granted, the impugned claims were dismissed, leave was granted for additional counsel to appear, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The applicant student was unsuccessful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction to stay disciplinary decisions made by the respondent college.

The respondent college sought partial indemnity costs of $7,210.

The court found the college was entirely successful and entitled to costs, but reduced the quantum to $5,000 due to the applicant's hardship as an international student navigating the public health crisis without family support.